1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this part of the facts is as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "Fence on December 5, 2016" in Part 17 of the judgment of the court of second instance as "Fence on November 4, 2016".

(b) On Part III of the judgment of the first instance court, the phrase “A evidence 2 to 5, testimony of witness E” shall be deemed to read “the respective entries of evidence A 1 to 5, and witness E”.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff delivered the instant store to the Defendants as the instant lease agreement terminated on November 30, 2016, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to pay each Plaintiff the amount of KRW 70 million (=150 million - the amount of KRW 150 million returned on December 12, 2016 - the amount of KRW 80 million returned on December 12, 2016) and damages for delay.

B. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff, the Defendants, and the Defendants (E) agreed to succeed KRW 70 million out of the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement between F and F as the lease deposit under the lease agreement between F and the Defendants. As such, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff does not have any obligation to return KRW 70 million out of the lease deposit. According to the testimony of E and E by the witness of the first instance trial, F and E of the witness of the first instance trial, when concluding the lease agreement with the Defendants on the instant store, the Defendants provided that F (E) is liable for the Plaintiff’s payment of the lease deposit and monthly rent to the Defendants at the time of the conclusion of the lease agreement with the Defendants, and that F (E) received several demands from the Plaintiff that the Defendants would not pay KRW 70 million of the lease deposit to the Defendants, and that F (E) received several demands from the Plaintiff to pay the lease deposit on June 2017.